RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


bounty44 -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/15/2016 5:20:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
funny how nutsuckers leave off the part of the story where they did it before the Obama administration, and it was nutsucker appointees still in there that carried it over.


ignoring for a moment the humongous and essential differences between the two programs that others have mentioned here, that every honest observer whose been paying attention should know, and that are also well enumerated here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/26/the-5-biggest-differences-between-operation-fast-and-furious-and-operation-wide-receiver/

it should be relatively easy for you then to say exactly who that Bush appointee in question was, and provide evidence that the two programs are inextricably linked through him.




mnottertail -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/15/2016 5:38:12 PM)

Every honest observer knows. Just not the nutsuckers. They lick toilets, shit their pants, lie, spew propagands, look for nutsuckers slobber blogs that can instruct them on continuing their felch....do just about anything but do rudimentary search for fact.

What is "Project Gunrunner"?
"Project Gunrunner" is a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) national initiative under the Justice Department started in 2006 aimed at reducing US-Mexico cross-border drug and gun trafficking and violence.

What is "Fast and Furious"?
"Fast and Furious" is the name ATF assigned to a group of Phoenix, Arizona-area gun trafficking cases under Project Gunrunner that began in fall of 2009. It's the largest of several known operations in which ATF employed gunwalking, involving more than 2,000 weapons, including hundreds of AK-47 type semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber rifles. According to sources who worked directly on the case, the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's government was not fully informed of the case. The ATF Special Agent in Charge of the operation was Bill Newell.

Complete coverage of the "Fast and Furious" scandal from CBS News
What is "Wide Receiver"?
"Wide Receiver" is the name ATF assigned to a group of gun trafficking cases investigated out of the Tucson, Arizona office beginning in 2006. Like Fast and Furious, it was supervised by ATF Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell. Sources indicate it involved about 275 "walked" guns. According to sources who worked directly on the case, the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's government was not fully informed of the case. Apparently worried that the gunwalking tactics could be viewed as inappropriate, federal prosecutors in Arizona abandoned the case. Then, in fall of 2009, Justice Department officials decided to go ahead and prosecute the case.

How did Fast and Furious start?
A number of Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) gun dealers in the Phoenix area routinely contacted ATF when they noticed suspicious customers attempting purchases; for example, someone ordering large numbers of AK-47 variant rifles and other so-called "weapons of choice" used by the Mexican drug cartels, and paying with large sums of cash brought in a paper bag. But starting in fall 2009, instead of stopping the transactions or questioning the customers, ATF often encouraged select gun dealers to go ahead and complete suspicious sales. ATF further asked the gun dealers to continue to cooperate by selling to the suspicious customers repeatedly, and providing ATF with names and weapons' serial numbers. Several gun dealers expressed concerns to ATF: they worried if they cooperated in selling guns to suspected criminals, they would later be unfairly blamed or even prosecuted, and that some of the weapons might be used one day to murder federal agents.

What was the motivation for ATF to employ such a controversial tactic?
Many U.S.-sold guns were being trafficked to Mexico and used in drug cartel violence. Though the exact percentage and number is the subject of debate, ATF was tasked with trying to stop the flow of guns. A year after Fast and Furious began, ATF remained under pressure from a Nov. 2011 Inspector General review (PDF) of Project Gunrunner that criticized ATF's focus on low level gun dealers and straw purchasers "rather than on higher-level traffickers, smugglers, and the ultimate recipients of the trafficked guns."

ATF officials who supported "gunwalking" say they thought that by seeing where the guns later "ended up" in Mexico would help them take down a cartel big fish.

Who thought up the idea to use gunwalking to try to counter gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels?
Nobody has publicly acknowledged being the architect of the plan and available documents shed no light on the answer. Justice Department officials have maintained it was a scandal brainstormed at the ATF Phoenix level. The same ATF Special Agent in Charge, Bill Newell, supervised the Bush era Wide Receiver gunwalking operation and some of the later gunwalking cases, including Fast and Furious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/15/2016 7:19:44 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Seems the founders didn't agree with you.
The second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

"every citizen, ...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.[5]

And according to US code 311 - still in force


No it is not. It was superseded by the dick act.





http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp

Perhaps you could get a grown up to read the snopes site to you and explane it to you.


The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.



Origins: The American experience with the Spanish-American War of 1898 and its aftermath demonstrated the need for reform of the U.S. military. In an attempt to balance the competing interests of those who wanted the U.S. to maintain a much larger standing army and those who felt an expanded peacetime army was both too expensive and contrary to American tradition, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903 (also known as the Dick Militia Act or the Dick Act, named for Ohio Congressman Charles Dick), which established the National Guard as the Army's primary organized reserve.

According to I Am the Guard, a history of the Army National Guard:
The Militia Act of 1903 was benchmark legislation that repealed the antiquated Militia Act of 1792 and converted the volunteer militia into the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization within five years. The law recognized two classes of militia; the Organized Militia (National Guard) under joint federal-State control and the Reserve Militia, the mass of 18-45 year old males otherwise available for military service. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend twenty-four drill periods per year and five days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods. The law called for Guard units to conduct maneuvers with the Army and to receive training assistance and formal inspections from Regulars. The Guard was subject to federal callups for nine months, though its service was restricted to within U.S. borders. The participation of Guard members in national callups was no longer discretionary; any soldier not reporting to his armory during a federal mobilization was subject to court martial.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Dick Act for the National Guard. The practices of the volunteer militia as a self-supporting and largely independent entity gave way to a new military force with significant federal funding and subject to the administrative controls of the War Department.
Most everything stated about the Dick Act in the example quoted above is erroneous, however:

• It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities ... the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

Under current public law, the militia of the United States comprises two classes, not three: the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of those who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. The "regular army" (i.e., the U.S. Army) is not a class of militia.
• All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an "absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type." The term "unorganized militia" simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia), and those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals. The existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been "invalidated" by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of "unorganized militia.")

• The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

No legislation is immune from being repealed, and in fact much of the content of the Dick Act has effectively been repealed through the passage of subsequent modifying legislation such as the Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the National Defense Act of 1920.

Moreover, "bills of attainder" and "ex post facto laws" are legal terms that have nothing to do with a supposed prohibition on the repeal of legislation: the former is a legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime without trial, and the latter refers to laws that retroactively impose punishments for actions that were legal prior to the passage of those laws.

•The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

Although it was true at one time, it is not now the case that "the President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their state borders."

The Dick Act authorized the federal callup of National Guard units for nine months (with the restriction that they serve within U.S. borders), and a 1908 amendment to the Dick Act eliminated both the nine-month callup limit and the restriction on National Guard units serving outside the United States. However, U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham declared in 1912 that authorizing the use of the National Guard for overseas service was unconstitutional. As noted in I Am the Guard, though, that 1912 restriction was lifted by legislation enacted in 1933 that provided that those who enlisted in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States and thereby became deployable assets of the U.S. Army:
Even as late as 1912, serious questions lingered over the legality of National Guard service overseas. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked Army Judge Advocate General Enoch H. Crowder to study the issue. Crowder found that the Guard was bound in its operations by the specific language of the Constitution and was not a substitute for a federal reserve force. He also opined that Congress had erred in the Militia Act of 1908 by authorizing the Guard’s use abroad.

Secretary Stimson forwarded Crowder's findings to the Department of Justice for a formal legal opinion. On February 12, 1912, U.S. Attorney General George W. Wickersham rendered an opinion that was potentially devastating to the Guard. Wickersham followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution and ruled that the federal government was forbidden from employing the National Guard for purposes beyond those enumerated in the Constitution's militia clauses. The attorney general declared that






Report Advertisement
provisions of the Militia Act of 1908 authorizing the Guard’s overseas service were unconstitutional, and furthermore, that the Guard could not serve as part of an army of occupation on foreign soil “under conditions short of actual warfare.” The Wickersham decision meant that the federal government could not order State troops overseas as long as they retained their status in the National Guard. In the War Department, the attorney general's ruling destroyed the Guard's value as a viable federal reserve.

An important amendment to previous National Guard legislation came in 1933. Since the passage of the Dick Act thirty years prior, the Guard’s dual nature — its role as both a State and federal force — had confused and confounded many soldiers and legislators alike. Under the leadership of Milton Reckord, NGAUS and Guard supporters drafted and passed into law an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916 that defined and institutionalized the Guard's unique status. The legislation established the "National Guard of the United States" as a permanent "reserve component" of the Army consisting of federally recognized National Guard units. At the same time, the law identified the "National Guard of the several States" [as] consisting of the voluntary members of the State militias that served under the Governors. In simplest terms, the "National Guard of the United States" pertained to the Guard’s federal role as a deployable asset of the Army, while the "National Guard of the several States" recognized the role of Guardsmen on State active duty. Henceforth, officers would take a dual oath to both the nation and their State.

Last updated: 12 March 2015









ifmaz -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/15/2016 8:48:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

funny how nutsuckers leave off the part of the story where they did it before the Obama administration, and it was nutsucker appointees still in there that carried it over.


Are you seriously saying because some political party did something absofuckinglutely stupid that some other political party can do the same (or nearly the same) absofuckinglutely stupid thing?

Or are you saying both major political parties are essentially the same form of idiocy and cannot be trusted with any form of power because they'll repeat the same mistakes the other party made?




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/16/2016 9:26:12 PM)


ORIGINAL: ifmaz

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.


Where did I ever say this?




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/16/2016 9:29:09 PM)

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.

Perhaps you can show me where I have said this?




ifmaz -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/16/2016 11:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.

Perhaps you can show me where I have said this?


What thread do you want to discuss this in? First you revive a thread from over two years ago insisting that we talk about your inability to shoot there (where it "originated" a full year before I even joined the site) and now you want to re-hijack this thread to discuss it here? Make up your mind.




mnottertail -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 3:26:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

funny how nutsuckers leave off the part of the story where they did it before the Obama administration, and it was nutsucker appointees still in there that carried it over.


Are you seriously saying because some political party did something absofuckinglutely stupid that some other political party can do the same (or nearly the same) absofuckinglutely stupid thing?

Or are you saying both major political parties are essentially the same form of idiocy and cannot be trusted with any form of power because they'll repeat the same mistakes the other party made?



Absolutely not to the first. And a fairly resounding yes to some of the second. However, this sports team shit is our own fault. The government is slightly bigger than Obama or even a nutsucker like Reagan or W. Some of those people are fuckin off kilter in a big way. To figure out that the AG or the Prez knows what every civil servant (read nutsucker welfare patient) in the federal government is doing, even if a memo crosses your desk..........among the hundreds of thousands.....is at the very least naifish. The idiots in Pheonix should have been shot as soon as the nutsuckers found out.

But where there is an ideology, there is an idiocy. Note the (I dont know, are you American? Haven't looked, so you may not know what I am talking about) nutsucker governors that went in and ruined their states with their slash taxes give to rich, and burn the rest, Brownback, Walker, Perry, Pawlenty and so on. Then the fiscally responsible governments take over, Democrats as usual, and get blamed for taxing (to make up for the destruction caused by nutsuckers) I dont know of any 'republican' governor who is really worth a shit after George Romney. Course because he was decent, he was killed off politically by the nutsuckers. His son Willard turned out to be a real douchecanoe.




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 4:01:13 AM)

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.

Perhaps you can show me where I have said this?
[/quote]

What thread do you want to discuss this in? First you revive a thread from over two years ago insisting that we talk about your inability to shoot there (where it "originated" a full year before I even joined the site) and now you want to re-hijack this thread to discuss it here? Make up your mind.

So far I have proved you a liar and you have proved yourself to be a gutless punk.
"not feeling so lucky punk?"




mnottertail -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 4:04:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A foot has to plant, can easily be timed. And it gets closer and closer as the mugger runs at you.

Damn good bet.


As you're "timing" to take a shot only a fool would make, the attacker is getting closer to you.

It's a "damn good bet" to get yourself killed, which is also what any CCW instructor would tell you after he laughs at you.




Thats the point, the attacker is getting closer. A CCW instructor teaches, they cant do real world.




ifmaz -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 9:56:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.

Perhaps you can show me where I have said this?


What thread do you want to discuss this in? First you revive a thread from over two years ago insisting that we talk about your inability to shoot there (where it "originated" a full year before I even joined the site) and now you want to re-hijack this thread to discuss it here? Make up your mind.

So far I have proved you a liar and you have proved yourself to be a gutless punk.
"not feeling so lucky punk?"



Right, because you called me out on my shooting abilities and then I lied about what I said after you linked me to the post.

Oh wait...





ifmaz -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 10:10:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A foot has to plant, can easily be timed. And it gets closer and closer as the mugger runs at you.

Damn good bet.


As you're "timing" to take a shot only a fool would make, the attacker is getting closer to you.

It's a "damn good bet" to get yourself killed, which is also what any CCW instructor would tell you after he laughs at you.




Thats the point, the attacker is getting closer. A CCW instructor teaches, they cant do real world.


You're as much of a fake as thompsonx. No one would ever encourage an attacker to get closer to you because that's an unimaginably stupid idea.




mnottertail -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 11:31:34 PM)

I get that you dont get real world stuff from the keyboard of armchair guns and ammo expertise. Your ideas seem cretinous. I dont think you have been paying attention to what I said. I think you are so frothed up that Huntie might shoot somebody in the foot that my agreeing with him that it aint a bad idea has caused you to blow a fucking headpipe.

Timing, distance, strategy and tactics are the core of all fighting arts. The given is you are going to be attacked here.

Here are some other strategies I also support.

1. it never happens
2. be on the other side of the world.
3. run attacker over with a car
4. have a machine gun, .45 cal if possible.
5. have a open choke or sawed off shotgun in 12 ga with the shells girdle cut around middle of the wad
6. RPG and be real close to the guy almost touching when I blow it, so the fucking thing dont arm.
7. A pair of .45s
8. A .45

thats just a couple of other scenarios, but we cant always have what we want.

But if I am being attacked, I need the guy pretty close if I am going to do him in somehow. It doesn't even rise to the level of physics. because at a block away Im a sniper. at 25 yards he aint a real threat. At 10 feet he starts to get menacing. at 5 hes a threat. at 3 he is just in reach, and so on.

Its pretty clear you are on the comic book side of this.

See, if he is attacking me, he aint got a gun, if hes shooting me then he does have one. I was given to understand this was an attacker. I know I can't outrun him. That would be unimaginably stupid.








Phydeaux -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/17/2016 11:46:08 PM)

None of which addresses the central point. US code 311 is still in force, it was not superceded by dick, and can be referenced in findlaw. For example, here:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311




mnottertail -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/18/2016 12:01:37 AM)

I don't know what the central point is, but there are a great many laws on the books that are unconstitutional, or not in keeping with the original intent of the constitution, in fact, in opposition to it.





thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/18/2016 12:21:10 AM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

None of which addresses the central point. US code 311 is still in force, it was not superceded by dick, and can be referenced in findlaw. For example, here:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311


You were shown from your own cite that you are wrong. Just as you have been shown to be wrong so many times on this board....hydrogen higway indeed[8|]




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/18/2016 12:27:02 AM)

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
1/19/2016 7:57:24 PM


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

You are a liar. Show me where I said tha prior to the time stamp on your post.




ifmaz -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/18/2016 8:28:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I get that you dont get real world stuff from the keyboard of armchair guns and ammo expertise. Your ideas seem cretinous. I dont think you have been paying attention to what I said. I think you are so frothed up that Huntie might shoot somebody in the foot that my agreeing with him that it aint a bad idea has caused you to blow a fucking headpipe.

Timing, distance, strategy and tactics are the core of all fighting arts. The given is you are going to be attacked here.


If someone says "I am going to stab you" and starts running at me, why would I wait until he's 3 feet away to engage? He's now able to stab me, how is this A Good Idea? Why would I then attempt to shoot him in the foot, a relatively tiny target that moves frequently, instead of center of mass, a much larger target?

You've very clearly never attended a CCW course. I'm not even sure you've thought this scenario through. The only thing causing me to "blow a fucking headpipe" is the stupidity you've displayed in something you are quite obviously untrained in. But ultimately I'm concerned that you have gone full retard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
...
But if I am being attacked, I need the guy pretty close if I am going to do him in somehow. It doesn't even rise to the level of physics. because at a block away Im a sniper. at 25 yards he aint a real threat. At 10 feet he starts to get menacing. at 5 hes a threat. at 3 he is just in reach, and so on.


Reaction time is a factor.
"It would be safe to say then that an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone."

This is assuming an attacker without a firearm. If the attacker has a firearm and is actively shooting, I think one would be well within their rights to return fire regardless of (reasonable) distance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Its pretty clear you are on the comic book side of this.

See, if he is attacking me, he aint got a gun, if hes shooting me then he does have one. I was given to understand this was an attacker. I know I can't outrun him. That would be unimaginably stupid.


I challenge you to find anything that suggests one willingly allow an attacker to get within 7 yards/21 feet before engaging them.

I'll be here reading my comics.




BamaD -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/18/2016 8:50:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice. We'll probably want to head out to the desert for that as shooting at the ground will get you removed from the range.

Perhaps you can show me where I have said this?


What thread do you want to discuss this in? First you revive a thread from over two years ago insisting that we talk about your inability to shoot there (where it "originated" a full year before I even joined the site) and now you want to re-hijack this thread to discuss it here? Make up your mind.

So far I have proved you a liar and you have proved yourself to be a gutless punk.
"not feeling so lucky punk?"



Right, because you called me out on my shooting abilities and then I lied about what I said after you linked me to the post.

Oh wait...



Actually he started this in the current guns flow from Mexico thread and for whatever reason decided it belonged in this thread, which had nothing to do with his silly claim.




thompsonx -> RE: Guns Flowing Into Mexico (3/19/2016 1:42:19 AM)

Actually he started this in the current guns flow from Mexico thread and for whatever reason decided it belonged in this thread, which had nothing to do with his silly claim.


Since your lil buddy cannot do it how about you do it...oh wait you are another lying loudmouth also...go ahead sweetie show us where I said that prior to this original post

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
1/19/2016 7:57:24 PM


While you're here you can show off your foot shooting technique as my offer still stands: shoot a fast-moving, foot-sized target from 25 yards and I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

You are a liar. Show me where I said tha prior to the time stamp on your post.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875